Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering C

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msec

Perbandingan ketahanan fraktur implan gigi dengan sudut lancip abutmen yang berbeda
Comparison of the fracture resistance of dental implants with different
abutment taper angles
Kun Wang a, Jianping Geng b, David Jones c, Wei Xu d,⁎
a
Department of Dentistry, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China
b
Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211800, China
c
MicroStructural Studies Unit, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To investigate the effects of abutment taper angles on the fracture strength of dental implants with TIS (taper in-
Received 25 October 2015 tegrated screwed-in) connection. Thirty prototype cylindrical titanium alloy 5.0 mm-diameter dental implants
Received in revised form 28 January 2016 with different TIS-connection designs were divided into six groups and tested for their fracture strength, using
Accepted 3 February 2016
a universal testing machine. These groups consisted of combinations of 3.5 and 4.0 mm abutment diameter,
Available online 4 March 2016
each with taper angles of 6°, 8° or 10°. 3-Dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) was also used to analyze stress
Keywords:
states at implant–abutment connection areas. In general, the mechanical tests found an increasing trend of im-
Dental implants plant fracture forces as the taper angle enlarged. When the abutment diameter was 3.5 mm, the mean fracture
Static compression test forces for 8° and 10° taper groups were 1638.9 N ± 20.3 and 1577.1 N ± 103.2, respectively, both larger than
Fracture resistance that for the 6° taper group of 1475.0 N ± 24.4, with the largest increasing rate of 11.1%. Furthermore, the differ-
Implant–abutment connection ence between 8° and 6° taper groups was significant, based on Tamhane's multiple comparison test (P b 0.05). In
Taper angle 4.0 mm-diameter abutment groups, as the taper angle was enlarged from 6° to 8° and 10°, the mean fracture
Finite element analysis value was increased from 1066.7 N ± 56.1 to 1241.4 N ± 6.4 and 1419.3 N ± 20.0, with the largest increasing
rate of 33.1%, and the differences among the three groups were significant (P b 0.05). The FEA results showed
that stress values varied in implants with different abutment taper angles and supported the findings of the static
tests. In conclusion, increases of the abutment taper angle could significantly increase implant fracture resistance
in most cases established in the study, which is due to the increased implant wall thickness in the connection part
resulting from the taper angle enlargement. The increasing effects were notable when a thin implant wall was
present to accommodate wide abutments.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction implant–abutment interface and abutment screw to greater external

Most osseointegrated dental implant systems are composed of an
endosteal fixture, a component inserted into the jaw bone, and an
abutment, connecting the fixture to support or retain the prosthetic su-
perstructure. The abutment is secured to the fixture with a mechanical
attachment method and is named the implant–abutment connection.
At present, there are a number of implant–abutment connection
designs offered by implant companies. They may be classified as either
externally or internally connected.
The external hexagonal interface of the original design of the
Brånemark system, which is a typical external design, has been in use
the longest and has functioned well over the years. Recently, it
has been incorporated in a number of competing systems. However,
the connection has the mechanical disadvantages of exposing the
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dentalimplants@163.com (K. Wang), jpgeng2005@163.com
(J. Geng), d.g.jones@surrey.ac.uk (D. Jones), w.xu@surrey.ac.uk (W. Xu).
loads and bending moments, which can lead to screw joint opening
and screw loosening [1,2]. Zarb and Schmitt reported the clinical out-
come of 274 Brånemark implants with the external connection, and
they noted 9 abutment fractures and 53 gold screw fractures over a 4-
to 9-year period [3]. In their one-year follow-up study, Jemt et al. report-
ed that the overall success rate was 98.6% for the Brånemark implants,
with the most common complications related to loosening gold screws
and esthetic complaints [4]. Moreover, problems of screw loosening or
fracture are more likely to occur when external connection implants
are used to support single-unit restorations, where implants are not
splinted and are subjected to multidirectional loading that challenges
the external connection components and restoration structural integri-
ty. In a multicenter prospective study on external connection implants
for single tooth replacement, the most obvious problem experienced
during the first year was related to loosening abutment screws with
an incidence of 26% [5]. Becker and colleagues found that retaining
screws loosened in 8 of 24 implants restoring single molars with
follow-up of 24 months [6].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.02.015
0928-4931/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171
Since the 1990s, several modifications of the design of the external
abutment screw, the material of the screw itself and the coefficient of
friction between the mated surfaces, have been made to reduce the con-
nection complications. However, mechanical complications of external
connections are not eliminated and still remain a concern in the implant
community. In order to overcome the connection problems, a new con-
cept of internal connection was developed. Contrary to the external
connection, the internal connection design has a feature that extends
from the inferior to the coronal portion of the implant and is located in-
side the implant body. The internal connection has a mechanical advan-
tage of dramatically reducing screw failures by distributing occlusal
forces deep into the implant and shielding the abutment retention
screw from excess loading. Further, deep joints in internal connections
are more likely to resist bending forces than shallow joints in external
connections. Therefore, internal connections have superior joint
strength than that of external counterparts [7].
Of various internal connections, the taper integrated screwed-in
(TIS) abutment is becoming more popular, which uses simultaneously
a screw and a tapered fit to provide mechanical stability. The TIS-type
connection offers high resistance to loosening torques, and it has been
reported that loosening of the abutment is prevented [8]. Bozkaya and
Müftü analyzed the mechanical properties of the TIS-type connection,
with the focus on connection stability parameters of tightening and
loosening torques [9]. They developed analytical formulas to predict
tightening and loosening torque values by combining the equations
related to the tapered interface with screw mechanics equations.
They found that the value of the coefficient of frictions, taper angles,
connection depth and outer radius of the implant were the factors
affecting implant–abutment connection stability.
It has been well documented that the implant–abutment connection
is the weakest part in terms of the whole implant mechanical strength,
especially for the internal connection designs which have a thin fixture
wall at the connecting parts [10]. As for the TIS-type connection, those
abovementioned connection parameters can also affect its mechanical
strength. Nowadays, different taper angles have been used by different
manufacturers in their TIS-type implants. However, there is only limited
information that can be found in the literature about the relationship
between taper angles and the mechanical strength of implants. The pur-
pose of the present in vitro research was to compare the compressive
fracture strength of dental implants with different abutment taper an-
gles. In addition to the experimental tests, 3-dimensional finite element
analysis (3D-FEA) was carried out to evaluate the stress state of im-
plant–abutment connection areas as a function of different abutment
taper angles.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample preparation for mechanical tests
For this in vitro investigation, thirty prototype cylindrical titanium
alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) implants divided into six groups (n = 5) were
fabricated using a BUMOTEC S-191 V (Bumotec SA, Switzerland) CNC
(computer numerical control) machining center. The manufacturing di-
mensional tolerances were set to 10 μm. To the best of the authors'
knowledge, this accuracy tolerance level should be sufficient to satisfy
the testing requirements for the present study [11].
2.2. Overview of implant specimen designs
The TIS-type dental implant specimens used in this study can be di-
vided into three parts: implant body, abutment, and the restorative part.
The latter two parts were simplified into one section of the superstruc-
ture. The implant body had a diameter of 5.0 mm and length of 13.0 mm.
It consisted of two parts: the 2.0 mm-height of the non-threaded highly
polished cylindrical neck and an 11.0 mm-height of the threaded part.
The threaded part featured a triangular thread design with a uniform
165
0.3 mm thread depth and 0.6 mm thread pitch. The superstructure
part started from the TIS abutment and gradually widened to be the cor-
onal restorative part, which was simplified into a combination of a cyl-
inder (4.5 mm-diameter, 5.5 mm-height) and a hemispherical dome
(Fig. 1). Two different abutment diameters, 3.5 mm and 4.0 mm, at
the implant platform level were designed. The abutment connection
part had a depth of 3.0 mm and taper angles of 6°, 8° and 10°. For the
purpose of brevity, each specimen was named by two hyphenated num-
bers, representing the abutment diameter and taper angle, respectively.
Thus 5.0 mm-diameter implants had names of 3.5-6, 3.5-8, 3.5-10, 4-6,
4-8, and 4-10, respectively.
2.3. Overview of the static test set-up
The implant specimens were investigated in a test setup fabricated
according to the ISO 14801 static testing standard (Fig. 2). The implants
were embedded and secured in a custom jig, which was made up of an
aluminum alloy cylinder and a stainless steel block. An internal
threaded hole in the depth of 10 mm was cut in the center of the alumi-
num alloy cylinder to accommodate test implants, and the stainless
steel block functioned as a holder for the aluminum alloy cylinder. Im-
plants were inserted into the threaded hole to a depth of 10 mm in a
manner simulating 3.0 mm of the crestal bone loss. The jig carrying im-
plant specimens was fixed onto the universal testing machine (Model
6025; Instron, Canton, MA, USA) in such a way that specimens were
loaded with a 30° oblique force recommended by the ISO 14801 stan-
dard. Off-axis loading was applied to the hemispherical cap of each
implant by a flat indenter, ensuring the distance from the center of
the hemisphere cap to the cylinder surface (clamping plane) was
11.0 mm. Therefore the moment arm was defined as 11.0 mm × sin
30° (5.5 mm). The ISO 14801 was followed by ensuring unconstrained
movement of the loading member transverse to the loading direction.
This was achieved by a socket fit joint between the loading member
and the test machine structure. The joint was close to the load cell and
was approximately 200 mm away from the lower end of the flat indent-
er. The abutments were tightened to the implants with a torque value of
35 N cm using the BTG60CN-S torque gauge (Tohnichi, Tokyo, Japan).
Ten minutes after the torque tightening, the test was carried out with
a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until the implant fractured or exhib-
ited a significant amount of plastic deformation. This kind of irreversible
deformation is determined by fitting the load–displacement curves
with the regression lines, and the force at which the load–displacement
curve first deviates by 10% from the regression line will be recorded as
an indicator for initiation of significant plastic deformation [12].
2.4. Statistical analysis & fracture analysis
Throughout the loading, the raw data of force–displacement values
were recorded by the computer. Data were subsequently used to deter-
mine the maximum load levels and create force–displacement curves.
The mean and standard deviations of the fracture forces or the maxi-
mum deformation forces were determined, and Tamhane's multiple
comparison test was used to assess differences between groups. The
level of significance was set as P b 0.05.
After the mechanical testing, macrofracture mode analysis was per-
formed to identify different fracture modes for all the specimens. Fur-
ther fractographic analysis was performed using a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) (JEOL, JSM-7100F, Japan). For SEM evaluations
implants were cleaned and dried. Digital images of the specimens
were recorded at various magnifications to evaluate the fracture
surfaces.
2.5. Finite element analysis
Numerical simulations were carried out to evaluate the mechanical
properties of the implants with different abutment taper angles with
166 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171
Fig. 1. The engineering drawing of the implant specimens tested in this study.
particular reference to the implant–abutment connection area where
the fracture was expected to occur. Three dimensional models of
the jig (an aluminum alloy cylinder and a stainless steel block) and im-
plants were generated using the SolidWorks 2008 software (Dassault
Systèmes SolidWorks Corp., Massachusetts, USA), which were the
same as described in previous sections. The models were then trans-
ferred into the ANSYS 13.0 software (ANSYS, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA)
to generate 3D-FEA models, including six models of 3.5-6, 3.5-8, 3.5-
10, 4-6, 4-8, and 4-10. Ten-node tetrahedral elements were used to gen-
erate the model mesh. Since this study was designed to evaluate the
stress patterns, with particular reference to the connection region,
simplifications were made to define the contacts (implant–abutment
interface and implant–jig interface) as a fully bonded interface. The
boundary condition of total fixation on the nodes of the bottom face of
the jig was chosen. The material properties of the models were assumed
to be homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic, and the specific values
were listed in Table 1. A 200-N load, which was in the range of normal
bite forces, was applied to the hemispherical dome of each implant
with an inclination of 30° from the implant long axis [13]. Distribution
of von-Mises stresses in the implant neck area was observed.
3. Results
3.1. The failure modes & force–displacement curve
The failure mode was almost identical in all specimens, including
large deformations of the framework at the implant neck area, and
two fracture surfaces: implant neck fracture and abutment screw frac-
ture (Fig. 3). The implant neck fracture took place in the neck region be-
tween the first and second threads which was flush with the surface of
the aluminum cylinder. The fracture was large and accompanied by a
strong bricking sound during the test. The abutment fracture was at
the head of the screw just below the base of the abutment cone. In
contrast, it was accompanied with a weak breaking sound. These two
fracture events were recorded as sudden drops of loads by computer,
and displayed as two obvious downward turning points in the force–
displacement curve (Fig. 4). The first turning point was at the top of
the curve, which was defined as the failure force of implant specimens.
And the second one was shortly after the first one and corresponded to
abutment screw fracture.
3.2. The maximum loads
The maximum loads for all the six groups were summarized in Fig. 5,
ranging from 1023.9 N (in group 4-6) to 1698.5 N (in group 3.5-10). In
general, specimens of group 4-6 provided lower maximum loads than
the other 5 groups did. The value of every specimen in groups 3.5-6,
3.5-8, 3.5-10, and 4-10 was larger than 1400 N, and all the five speci-
mens in group 3.5-8 had a value of more than 1600 N.
3.3. Statistical and SEM analysis
The mean maximum load, standard deviation, coefficient of varia-
tion, and bending moment values of all the specimens are shown in
Table 1. Implants in group 3.5-8 had the highest mean maximum load
level of 1638.9 N ± 20.3, and the lowest value of 1066.7 N ± 56.1 was
found in group 4-6. Groups 3.5-6, 3.5-10, 4-8, and 4-10 provided values
of 1475.0 N ± 24.4, 1577.1 N ± 103.2, 1241.4 N ± 6.4, and 1419.3 N ±
20.0, respectively.
The results of the mean bending moment listed in Table 2 were ob-
tained by multiplying the mean maximum load and moment arm. In the
loading set of this study, the moment arm was fixed as 5.5 mm. There-
fore, it was easier to get the mean bending moment values. Group 4-6
had the lowest mean maximum load value, which was significantly
lower than that for the other five groups, by Tamhane's multiple com-
parison test (P b 0.05). The mean maximum load differences between
group 4-8 and any other groups were statistically significant, with
P b 0.05. There were no significant differences between the result of
3.5-10 and that of 3.5-6, and 3.5-8. Moreover, the result of 4-10 did
not significantly differ from that of 3.5-6 and 3.5-10. The mean
 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171 167

Fig. 3. Photograph of a tested specimen showing fractures of the implant neck and
abutment screw.

Fig. 2. The compressive loading set-up with an implant specimen mounted on.
displacement values of the crosshead corresponding to the first load
drop in Fig. 4 recorded by the computer were shown in Table 2. As the
vertical displacements were from 1.3 mm to 2.5 mm, there were only
smaller lateral displacements of the specimens. Fig. 6 is a typical SEM
image of the fractured surface of one specimen, including the implant
neck wall fracture and failure surface of the abutment screw.
3.4. 3D-FEA results
the six models. In all the models, the biggest von-Mises stress values
at the abutment connection part were remarkably lower than those at
the implant neck area, and the values at the abutment screw were less
than 50 MPa.
4. Discussion
The experimental test is a reliable and useful method to determine
the mechanical integrity for implant research and development pur-
poses. It is repeatable and allows a comparative analysis of the mechan-
ical response of different designs of implants undergoing the same
loading and boundary conditions. Previous in vitro studies have evaluat-
ed effects of various parameters on implant static failure strength,

Distribution of von-Mises stresses at the implant–abutment connec-

tion area was compared for implants with different abutment taper an-
gles. For all the implants, the von-Mises stresses were concentrated at
the implant neck area around the first and second threads and the abut-
ment connection part (Fig. 7). The greatest stress values were at the lin-
gual (L) side of the implant necks, and the values at the buccal (B) side
were a little bit smaller. Fig. 8 shows the greatest stress values at the
buccal and lingual sides of the implant necks and the 4-6 model had
the biggest stress values of 322.7 MPa (B) and 368.4 MPa (L) among

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the finite element models.

Materials Young's modulus (GPa) Poisson's ratio

Ti–6Al–4V 110 0.32

Aluminum alloy 79 0.33
Stainless steel 195 0.25
Fig. 4. A representative load–displacement curve for implant specimens tested.
168 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171
Fig. 5. Values of maximum loads for the six test groups.
which included implant or abutment dimensions, shapes, test protocol
variables, materials, and implant–abutment interfaces. When it came
to investigating the effects of dimensions, materials and test protocol
variables, usually the same implant system was chosen for the purpose
of comparability [14–16]. As for comparisons of failure strength of
implants with different implant–abutment interfaces, researchers had
to use different implant systems, which varied not only in implant–
abutment interfaces but also in shapes, dimensions, surface characteris-
tics, and material properties [17]. Therefore, in most of the cases, the
comparability was compromised and it was of an insufficient level to
isolate influences of implant–abutment interfaces on fracture strength
values precisely. For example, with the objective of comparing fracture
strength of the implant–abutment connection of six established implant
systems, investigators tested specimens from five different manufac-
turers, which were different not only in implant–abutment interface
geometries but also different in diameter and morphological designs
in their neck, body and threads [18]. As reported by Möllersten, these
studies could not find the exact influences of implant–abutment con-
nections on implant fracture strengths, but rather compare the mechan-
ical behavior of the whole systems [7]. However, in this study good
comparability between different groups was guaranteed by custom-
manufacturing implants with identical parameters of implant diameter,
implant shapes, material, and abutment connection depth.
In the present study, the mean values of maximum load were from
1066.7 N ± 56.1 to 1638.9 N ± 20.3. And the mean maximum bending
moments for the six groups ranged from 5866.6 N mm to 9014.1 N mm.
The present results of the maximum forces are in the similar ranges of
previously published studies of static tests using implants with a diam-
eter of 5.0 mm but different implant structures. Shemtov-Yona et al. re-
ported the maximum fracture forces of their implant system in a range
of 1400–1700 N, with a mean of 1584 N ± 115 [15]. Steinebrunner and
colleagues tested four commercial implant systems with the median
fracture strengths varying from 782 N to 1542 N [18]. However, our re-
sults compare favorably with those previously reported by Norton [19],
who found the mean maximum bending moments of 5507 N mm
(load = 220 N) and 3269 N mm (load = 131 N) which were recorded
for the Astra (11° taper angle) and ITI (8° taper angle) TIS-type implants,
respectively. This is likely to be the result of three factors. One was that
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of results for the six test groups.
Specimen group 3.5-6a 3.5-8b
Mean (N) 1475.0 1638.9
SD 24.4 20.3
CV 0.0166 0.0124
MBM (N mm) 8112.3 9014.1
MDC (mm) 1.5 2.0
SD = standard deviation, CV = coefficient of variation, MBM = mean bending moments, MDC = mean displacement of crosshead. Values denoted by the same superscripts do not differ
with statistical significance.
Norton used the 3-point bending test method which applied loads at an
angle of 90°. At this angle, implants were prone to be fractured with
lower load levels. Furthermore, all implant components in Norton's
study were manufactured from commercially pure titanium, which
had inferior mechanical strength to the Ti–6Al–4V alloy used in
this study. Moreover, implants tested in our study had a diameter
of 5.0 mm, which was larger than that of Astra (4.5 mm) and ITI
(4.1 mm). Norton demonstrated Astra implant systems had a better re-
sistance to 3-point bending loadings than ITI ones. However, there was
less comparability in terms of implant shapes, dimensions, and im-
plant–abutment connections of the two tested systems, which are the
factors determining implant mechanical strengths [20,21]. Therefore,
it is not possible to find how these variables affect implant fracture
strengths, much less the exact effect of connection design or taper an-
gles on the fracture resistance. The present study for the first time stud-
ied relationships between taper angles and implant static strength, with
good intergroup comparability by using identical implant designs,
diameters, and materials.
In this study, all implants were statically compressed under 30° off-
axis loadings until fracture occurred. The failure mode was almost
identical in all specimens, including two fracture surfaces: implant
neck fracture and abutment screw fracture. And this failure mode was
similar to that of ITI implants with 8° TIS-connection designs reported
in one in vitro study [22]. The SEM analysis showed that the mode of
fracture for abutment screws was ductile, characterized by rough and
dull surfaces with numerous large dimples (Fig. 6b). Since the circular
abutment screw fracture had two facets which met at an angle, their
junction appeared in a rung shape in the SEM images. The abutment
screw was in a small diameter of 2.0 mm and it fractured in much
lower loads than the implant wall, therefore its failure corresponded
to the second sharp drop in the load–displacement curve (Fig. 4). The
implant wall fracture developed at the thread bottom of the buccal
side of the implant neck (indicated by a small black arrow) and ad-
vanced along the thread spiral line to the lingual side (indicated by a
large black arrow), with the fracture direction being marked by the
white arrow in Fig. 6. The implant wall fracture started with a slow duc-
tile fracture with dimples and microvoids (Fig. 6c & d) and ended with
rapid fractures as shown by the shiny surfaces (Fig. 6e & f). These SEM
findings are consistent with the results reported by Apicella and Chan
et al. [23,24].
The implant neck fracture took place in the neck region, and was re-
corded as the first turning point at the top of the force–displacement
curve, which was defined as the failure force. Therefore, the fracture re-
sistance of the whole specimen was determined by strength in the area
of the implant neck under present loading settings. More specifically,
implant fracture strength was closely correlated to wall thickness in
the implant neck area, which varied among groups with different abut-
ment taper angles in this study (Fig. 1). This agrees with the experimen-
tal results of one static test, which confirmed that the triangular
connection design of the NobelSpeedy Replace 3.5 mm implant system
compromised its neck wall thickness, and made it more predisposed to
fracture than the thicker continuous wall in the other systems [21]. In
addition, it is consistent with numerical studies. van Staden and
colleagues investigated stresses of dental implants with different wall
thicknesses using the FEA method, which demonstrated that the
3.5-10a,b 4-6c 4-8d 4-10a
1577.1 1066.7 1241.4 1419.3
103.2 56.1 6.4 20.0
0.0655 0.0526 0.0051 0.0141
8674.1 5866.6 6827.5 7806.4
2.5 1.3 1.5 1.6
 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171 169

Fig. 6. (a) is an overall view (×25) of the fractured surfaces of one specimen, with the white arrow showing the fracture direction of the abutment screw. (b) is a higher magnitude (×500)
of fractured area in the middle of the abutment screw surface shown in (a), with dimples being the characteristic of ductile failure. (c) shows the implant wall fracture profiles shown in
(a) and indicated by the small black arrow, with dimples and microvoids indicating a slow ductile fracture. (e) shows the end area of the implant wall fracture shown in (a) and indicated
by the large black arrow with rapid fractures as shown by the shiny surfaces. (d) and (f) are the original magnification ×500 of (c) and (e), respectively.

implant wall thickness had a significant influence on the stress magni-
tude and distribution pattern within the implant and reduced wall
thickness would result in higher stress magnitudes [25]. In another
FEA study, the authors found that, for the implants with the same
diameter, reducing the abutment diameter could decrease the bone
stress significantly under loading, which might be due to the fact that
a small abutment diameter provides a thicker fixture wall for transmit-
ting stresses than a larger abutment diameter. The higher thickness of
the fixture wall seems to provide the benefit of reducing the stress in
the implant, leading to lower stresses in the bone [26].
According to the engineering principle on fracture strength of cylin-
ders interpreted by Misch, increasing the wall thickness of two-piece
implants will significantly increase implant fracture resistance [20].
This fact is exemplified in the present study by the findings that groups
with abutments in 3.5 mm-diameter showed higher mean fracture
strengths compared with the groups with abutments in 4.0 mm-diam-
eter. Obviously, the wall thicknesses in the former groups were larger
than those of the latter ones. Furthermore, the abovementioned me-
chanical principle could be verified by comparing the mean failure
strength of groups with 4.0 mm-diameter abutments. The minimum
wall thickness in the implant neck area increased from 0.34 mm (4-6)
to 0.41 mm (4-8) and 0.48 mm (4-10), as the abutment cone taper in-
creased from 6° to 8° and 10°. The mean fracture strength resulting
from these minor changes of wall thickness increased gradually from
1066.7 N to 1241.4 N and 1419.3 N, respectively. Compared with the

Fig. 7. The top is one 3D-FEA model with enlargement of the implant deformation. The
bottom shows the distribution of von-Mises stresses (MPa) in the implant–abutment
connection area under the 200-N 30° off-axis loading. The stress concentration was
located at the implant neck region between the first and second threads from the buccal
(B) to the lingual (L) side (bottom left), and at the abutment connection part (bottom
right). Fig. 8. The greatest von-Mises stress values at the implant neck areas of the six models.
170 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171
6° taper, 8° and 10° taper angles increased the mean maximum force by
16.4% and 33.1%, respectively.
Dental implants used in this study were not of regular hollow
cylinder design but complicated shapes. In addition, taper enlargement
would make wall thickness larger, and result in dimension and size
changes of the abutment itself as well. Accordingly, the abovementioned
engineering principle is not necessarily applicable in all implant speci-
mens, and it should be used with caution, especially when minor chang-
es happened within a small dimension of 5.0 mm. It would be reasonable
to expect that as wall thickness became larger and larger, implant frac-
ture strength could not increase continuously without limitations. In
fact, it would inevitably enter into a plateau, where extra wall thickness
enhancement would not strengthen implants more. Accordingly, as for
groups with 3.5 mm-diameter abutments, when the minimum wall
thickness in the implant neck area increased from 0.59 mm (3.5-6) to
0.66 mm (3.5-8) resulting from taper angle enlargement from 6° to 8°,
the increasing rate of the mean fracture force was 11.1%. Then, as com-
pared to the 8° taper group, the mean fracture resistance of 10° taper
specimens did not go to a higher level but dropped slightly, indicating
that a plateau has been reached.
In all the FEA models, a 30° off-axis load was applied to the implants,
which produced a force moment bending implants to their lingual side.
Therefore, the stress concentration was at the neck areas between the
first and second threads, and the greatest stress levels at the lingual
side were larger than those at the buccal side. These results agree with
the FEA findings reported by Sannino et al. [27], and verified by the pres-
ent static tests in which implants' fractures occurred at their neck areas.
The present numerical results showed that stress values varied in im-
plants with different abutment taper angles. The 4 mm abutment diam-
eter implants had higher stress values than their 3.5 mm counterparts
did in the implant neck areas. For 4.0 mm abutment diameter implants,
stress values of 4-6 were larger than those of 4-8 and 4-10, and there
was no notable difference between the latter two models. And it was
also true of the 3.5 mm counterparts. From the mechanical perspective,
the thinner implant wall thickness meant less material volume at the
implant wall area, which performed less well in dispersing stresses
and caused greater stress concentration [25]. Accordingly, these stress
differences could be accounted for by the variations of the implant
neck wall thickness, which changed with the abutment taper angles.
Therefore, these stress results confirmed the findings of the present me-
chanical tests, where implant specimens with a thinner implant wall
thickness had poorer fracture strength. And moreover, the variation
tendencies of stress values of implants with different abutment taper
angles were consistent with the variation trends of implant fracture
loads obtained from the static tests.
In addition to the implant fracture strength, the efficiency of TIS-type
connection is another important mechanical configuration for an
implant system, which is defined as the ratio of the loosening torque
(abutment removal torque) to the tightening torque (abutment
screwing in torque). High efficiency means the connection performs
well in preventing abutment screw loosening. As calculated by Bozkaya
et al. [9], the efficiency is negatively correlated to the taper angle,
depending on the value of the friction coefficient. Accordingly, when
determining the ideal taper angle for developing a new implant system
of the TIS-type connection with proper mechanical configurations, the
designers should achieve a balance between the increasing effects of
taper angle for implant strength and the decreasing effects of taper
angle for the torque efficiency.
It is evident that the results of the present study are of significance to
researchers in implant design and manufacturing. Moreover, they are
useful for clinicians. According to Allum and co-authors [28], most of
the implant manufacturers keep the implant mechanical strength infor-
mation unpublished, which is largely unavailable to clinical practi-
tioners. Therefore the results of this study break down the barriers,
and provide the foundation for making a choice from TIS-connection
implant systems with different taper angles by clinical practitioners,
when superior implant strength is preferred to withstand higher masti-
catory forces in posterior region restorations or in patients with brux-
ism. In addition, clinicians can use the data obtained by this research
to make a judgment on the mechanical qualities of implants claimed
by manufacturers, who might exaggerate their products' mechanical
properties for the purpose of commercial interests.
5. Conclusion
This paper presents the statically tested results of the effects of
abutment taper angles on fracture strengths of dental implants, and
the 3D-FEA numerical results of the stress state of implant–abutment
connection areas as a function of different abutment taper angles.
Within the limitations of this research, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1) The increases of taper angle could significantly increase implant frac-
ture resistance in most cases established in the study, which is due to
the increased implant wall thickness in the taper part resulting from
the taper angle enlargement.
2) The increasing effects are notable when a thin implant wall is
present to accommodate wide abutments.
3) As for implants with small diameter abutments, the increasing rate
of implant fracture resistances is relatively low or will level off for
the further increases of the taper angle.
4) The 3D-FEA stress results confirm the findings of the mechanical
tests by showing that stress values varied in implants with different
abutment taper angles, and the stress variation tendencies of im-
plants with different abutment taper angles were consistent with
the variation trends of implant fracture strengths obtained from
the static tests.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. C.Y. Tang and P. Haynes
for their valued technical assistance with the specimen tests, and thank
Prof. K.F. Wang for his help in statistical data analysis.
References
[1] B. Rangert, T. Jemt, L. Jörneus, Forces and moments on Branemark implants, Int. J.
Oral Maxillofac. Implants 4 (1989) 241–247.
[2] L. Jörnéus, T. Jemt, L. Carlsson, Loads and designs of screw joints for single crowns
supported by osseointegrated implants, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 7 (1992)
353–359.
[3] G.A. Zarb, A. Schmitt, The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated den-
tal implants: the Toronto study, part III: problems and complications encountered, J.
Prosthet. Dent. 64 (1990) 185–194.
[4] T. Jemt, B. Lindén, U. Lekholm, Failures and complications in 127 consecutively
placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Brånemark implants: from prosthetic
treatment to first annual checkup, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 7 (1992) 40–44.
[5] T. Jemt, W.R. Laney, D. Harris, P.J. Henry, P.H. Krogh Jr., G. Polizzi, G.A. Zarb, I.
Herrmann, Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report
from a multicenter prospective study, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 6 (1991)
29–36.
[6] W. Becker, B.E. Becker, Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single
endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study, J. Prosthet. Dent. 74 (1995)
51–55.
[7] L. Möllersten, P. Lockowandt, L.A. Lindén, Comparison of strength and failure mode
of seven implant systems: an in vitro test, J. Prosthet. Dent. 78 (1997) 582–591.
[8] G.E. Romanos, G.H. Nentwig, Single molar replacement with a progressive thread
design implant system: a retrospective clinical report, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac.
Implants 15 (2000) 831–836.
[9] D. Bozkaya, S. Müftü, Mechanics of the taper integrated screwed-in (TIS) abutments
used in dental implants, J. Biomech. 38 (2005) 87–97.
[10] Y. Maeda, T. Satoh, M. Sogo, In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal
and external hex implant–abutment connections: a short communication, J. Oral
Rehabil. 33 (2006) 75–78.
[11] P.P. Binon, Implants and components: entering the new millennium, Int. J. Oral
Maxillofac. Implants 15 (2000) 76–94.
[12] S. Dittmer, M.P. Dittmer, P. Kohorst, M. Jendras, L. Borchers, M. Stiesch, Effect of
implant–abutment connection design on load bearing capacity and failure mode
of implants, J. Prosthodont. 20 (2011) 510–516.
 K. Wang et al. / Materials Science and Engineering C 63 (2016) 164–171
[13] J. Aguirrebeitia, M. Abasolo, J. Vallejo, R. Ansola, Dental implants with conical im-
plant–abutment interface: influence of the conical angle difference on the mechan-
ical behavior of the implant, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 28 (2013) e72–e82.
[14] C.K. Lee, M. Karl, J.R. Kelly, Evaluation of test protocol variables for dental implant
fatigue research, Dent. Mater. 25 (2009) 1419–1425.
[15] K. Shemtov-Yona, D. Rittel, L. Levin, E.E. Machtei, Effect of dental implant diameter
on fatigue performance, part I: mechanical behavior, Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat.
Res. 16 (2014) 172–177.
[16] C.F. Wang, H.L. Huang, D.J. Lin, Y.W. Shen, L.J. Fuh, J.T. Hsu, Comparisons of maxi-
mum deformation and failure forces at the implant–abutment interface of titanium
implants between titanium-alloy and zirconia abutments with two levels of margin-
al bone loss, Biomed. Eng. Online 12 (2013) 45.
[17] C.N. Elias, D.J. Fernandes, C.R. Resende, J. Roestel, Mechanical properties, surface
morphology and stability of a modified commercially pure high strength titanium
alloy for dental implants, Dent. Mater. 31 (2015) e1–e13.
[18] L. Steinebrunner, S. Wolfart, K. Ludwig, M. Kern, Implant–abutment interface design
affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants, Clin. Oral Implants Res. 19 (2008)
1276–1284.
[19] M.R. Norton, In vitro evaluation of the strength of the conical implant-to-abutment
joint in two commercially available implant systems, J. Prosthet. Dent. 83 (2000)
567–571.
[20] C.E. Misch, H.L. Wang, C.M. Misch, M. Sharawy, J. Lemons, K.W. Judy, Rationale for
the application of immediate load in implant dentistry, part II, Implant. Dent. 13
(2004) 310–321.
171
[21] A.Y. Imam, A. Moshaverinia, E.A. McGlumphy, Implant–abutment interface: a com-
parison of the ultimate force to failure among narrow-diameter implant systems,
J. Prosthet. Dent. 112 (2014) 136–142.
[22] J. Perriard, W.A. Wiskott, A. Mellal, S.S. Scherrer, J. Botsis, U.C. Belser, Fatigue resis-
tance of ITI implant–abutment connectors — a comparison of the standard cone
with a novel internally keyed design, Clin. Oral Implants Res. 13 (2002) 542–549.
[23] D. Apicella, M. Veltri, P. Balleri, A. Apicella, M. Ferrari, Influence of abutment material
on the fracture strength and failure modes of abutment-fixture assemblies when
loaded in a bio-faithful simulation, Clin. Oral Implants Res. 22 (2011) 182–188.
[24] H.L. Chan, W.S. Oh, H.S. Ong, J.H. Fu, M. Steigmann, M. Sierraalta, H.L. Wang, Impact
of implantoplasty on strength of the implant–abutment complex, Int. J. Oral
Maxillofac. Implants 28 (2013) 1530–1535.
[25] R.C. van Staden, H. Guan, Y.C. Loo, N.W. Johnson, N. Meredith, Stress evaluation of
dental implant wall thickness using numerical techniques, Appl. Osseointegration
Res. 6 (2008) 39–47.
[26] C.M. Chu, H.L. Huang, J.T. Hsu, L.J. Fuh, Influences of internal tapered abutment
designs on bone stresses around a dental implant: three-dimensional finite element
method with statistical evaluation, J. Periodontol. 83 (2012) 111–118.
[27] G. Sannino, A. Barlattani, Mechanical evaluation of an implant–abutment self-
locking taper connection: finite element analysis and experimental tests, Int. J.
Oral Maxillofac. Implants 28 (2013) e17–e26.
[28] S.R. Allum, R.A. Tomlinson, R. Joshi, The impact of loads on standard diameter, small
diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study, Clin. Oral Implants
Res. 19 (2008) 553–559.